iBankCoin
Home / 2011 / May (page 48)

Monthly Archives: May 2011

Bank of England Leaves Rates on Hold

“The Bank of England kept its benchmark interest rate at a record low as signs the recovery is losing momentum kept a majority of policy makers focused on stimulating growth during the government’s fiscal squeeze.

The nine-member Monetary Policy Committee, led by Governor Mervyn King, held the key rate at 0.5 percent, as forecast by all 43 economists in a Bloomberg News survey. The bank also left its bond-purchase program at 200 billion pounds ($330 billion), as forecast by 29 economists in a separate poll.

The economy stalled over the fourth and first quarters, and surveys this week showed services, manufacturing and construction growth moderated in April. Officials, who will publish new growth and inflation forecasts next week, are split on the threats from government spending cuts and inflation that’s double the central bank’s 2 percent target.”

Full article

Comments »

World Food Prices Reach Near Record Highs for April

“World food prices rose to near a record in April as grain costs advanced, adding pressure to inflation that is accelerating from Beijing to Brasilia and spurring central banks to raise interest rates.

An index of 55 commodities rose to 232.1 points from 231 points in March, the United Nations’ Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organization said in a report on its website today. The gauge climbed to an all-time high of 237.2 in February before dropping 2.6 percent in March.

The cost of living in the U.S. rose at its fastest pace since December 2009 in the 12 months ended in March, the same month in which Chinese consumer prices rose by the most since 2008. The European Central Bank raised interest rates on April 7, joining ChinaIndia, Poland and Sweden in a bid to control inflation partly blamed on food costs. Costlier food also contributed to riots across northern Africa and the Middle East that toppled leaders in Egypt and Tunisia this year.”

Full article

Comments »

Biggest Losers Over the Past Two Weeks

Min market cap of $1bill applied to screen

No. Ticker 2-week Return Market Cap
1 AG -24.60 1,870,000,000
2 LFT -24.21 1,170,000,000
3 PPC -21.06 1,170,000,000
4 PTI -19.47 1,100,000,000
5 QIHU -19.29 3,220,000,000
6 UA -18.83 3,340,000,000
7 SVM -18.74 2,080,000,000
8 OPEN -18.38 2,100,000,000
9 FTO -17.54 2,660,000,000
10 HOC -17.34 2,780,000,000
11 BEXP -17.28 3,330,000,000
12 TRMB -17.17 4,950,000,000
13 SFSF -17.07 2,560,000,000
14 SINA -16.51 7,320,000,000
15 WNR -16.50 1,350,000,000
16 CVI -16.04 1,690,000,000
17 YOKU -15.80 5,850,000,000
18 HP -15.04 6,220,000,000
19 UIS -14.52 1,170,000,000
20 HNI -14.18 1,180,000,000
21 AKAM -14.05 6,530,000,000
22 JAZZ -13.82 1,190,000,000
23 NG -13.69 2,770,000,000
24 TIVO -13.61 1,090,000,000
25 TCL -13.56 1,440,000,000

Data provided by The PPT

Comments »

Huge ETF Winners/Losers Over the Past Two Weeks

Winners:

No. Ticker 2-week Return
1 ZSL 21.61
2 DUST 13.95
3 LHB 10.87
4 FXP 10.37
5 BZQ 10.27
6 EDZ 9.70
7 ERY 8.61
8 RXL 7.28
9 TMF 7.11
10 EPU 6.75

—————————–

Losers:

No. Ticker 2-week Return
1 BXDD -32.95
2 AGQ -26.18
3 PSLV -21.80
4 CZM -13.22
5 DBS -12.88
6 SLV -12.69
7 LBJ -12.29
8 NUGT -12.24
9 CVOL -12.19
10 SIL -11.65

Comments »

Tesoro Beats Estimates

First-quarter net income was $107 million, or 74 cents a share, compared with a year-earlier loss of a $155 million, or $1.11, San Antonio-based Tesoro said in a statement distributed by Thomson Reuters. The company was expected to earn 44 cents a share, the average of two analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Full article

Comments »

Money Managers Dislike Bank Stocks Due to Derivative Exposure

“Above all stick with what you know,” Warren Buffettcautioned investors in a 1974 Forbes magazine interview. “Don’t get too fancy.”

Banks, in the view of some of today’s best-performing money managers, are too fancy — their businesses and finances too complicated to understand even as regulators have tried to make them more transparent. Investors owning few if any of the stocks in the group include Clyde McGregor, who runs Oakmark Equity and Income Fund, Delafield Fund’s John Delafield and Donald Yacktman of Yacktman Focused Fund.

The fund managers said they are frustrated by complex balance sheets stuffed with derivatives that make it hard to evaluate bank assets and how they will fare under different economic scenarios. They are also concerned that profits may be hurt by a slowdown in the economy, litigation over mortgage bonds and foreclosures, and new fee-crimping rules.

“We find it hard to believe the banks have cured all their bad asset problems, and they aren’t transparent enough for us to understand the risks,” McGregor, whose $20.5 billion fund beat 99 percent of peers over the past decade, said in a telephone interview from Chicago.”

Full article

Comments »

News Corp Posts Lower Profits on Slow Box Office Sales

“NEW YORK (Reuters) – News Corp (NasdaqGS:NWSA – News) posted a lower quarterly profit on a weaker box office performance than a year ago, which was partly offset by strong performance at its cable television business.

Net profit for its fiscal third quarter was $639 million, or 24 cents a share compared with $839 million, or 32 cents a share a year ago.

Excluding one-time items the profit was 26 cents.

Revenue dropped 6 percent to $8.26 billion.”

Full article

Comments »

Oil Forecasts

“Recently when I was reading some of the papers M. King Hubbert wrote, one thing struck me was the context in which he made his forecast regarding how world oil supply would peak and decline. He made this forecast in the context of having plenty of other fuel supply from other sourcesalready developed, to offset this decline.

Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Energy

The three graphs shown in this paper are from Hubbert’s 1956 paper, Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels. Based on Figure 30, it is clear that he expected nuclear energy to raise total energy production to a very high level, even before fossil fuels began to decline.”

Full article

Comments »

Congress Should Take Note of the RICO ACT

“A month ago I questioned whether there was sufficient evidence of abusive and fraudulent practices in the mortgage business on Wall Street (underwriting, servicing, securitizations, etc) to make a case that the industry as a whole violated the Racketeering Act? I hold out no hope that our ‘leaders’ in Washington would even think about making that case; that said, I think there is plenty of reason to believe that a very real case could be made.

What will we likely see? Perhaps a number of individual cases. We witness just such a situation today with news that the Department of Justice yesterday filed a lawsuit against Deutsche Bank for lying about the quality of loans made by a mortgage subsidiary of the German bank.
The Wall Street Journal provides further details on this case this morning, in writing, U.S. Says Deutsche Bank Lied,

The Justice Department accused Deutsche Bank AG of “recklessly” lying about the quality of loans made by a mortgage unit of the German bank and guaranteed by the U.S. government.

In a civil lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara sought to recover alleged damages and losses on mortgages insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which could total more than $1 billion.

The 48-page lawsuit detailed what Mr. Bharara said was a decade-long disregard of basic underwriting standards and quality control at mortgage lender MortgageIT Inc., which was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 2007.

Now I ask you, do you think…”

Full article

Comments »

A Compiled List on the Health of the Economy

From The Business Insider

“We’ve been compiling this list of slowdown signs since the last month, and the data continues to confirm that the economy is just getting softer.

So, let’s update.”

Full article

Comments »

Politics could hamper future Chinese investment in America

SHANGHAI — For three decades, wealthy nations have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in China, helping drive one of the most remarkable economic booms in history.

Now, China is poised to return the investment favor. The question is whether the United States will be willing and able to fully participate, according to a new study to be released Thursday.

Flush with capital from its enormous trade surpluses and armed with the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves, China has begun spreading its newfound riches to every corner of the world — whether copper mines in Africa, iron ore facilities in Australia or even a gas shale project in the heart of Texas.

The study, commissioned by the Asia Society in New York and the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, forecasts that over the next decade China could invest as much as $2 trillion in overseas companies, plants or property, money that could help reinvigorate growth in the United States and Europe.

But the report, to be released at a Washington news conference that Commerce Secretary Gary Locke plans to attend, also warns that the United States risks missing out on a large share of the Chinese investment boom because of politics, a growing rivalry between the two nations and deep-seated perceptions that Chinese investments are unwelcome in America.

“If political interference is not tempered,” the study warns, some of the benefits of Chinese investment — “such as job creation, consumer welfare and even contributions to U.S. infrastructure renewal — risk being diverted to our competitors.” While Wall Street banks have lobbied for more Chinese investments in the United States, hoping that will bring bigger deals for the banks, Washington has remained wary — even though the Obama administration says it welcomes Chinese money.

But anti-China rhetoric is hot in Washington and among many state and local officials. One frequently cited worry is that Chinese companies, many of them owned partly or entirely by the government, will use their purchases to gain military secrets. Another concern is that Chinese companies will buy American companies with manufacturing operations in the United States, close those factories and move production to China.

China, of course, is already a force in global markets. Over the last few years, it has made multibillion-dollar loans to developing nations and let its state-owned companies acquire minority stakes in global powerhouses like Rio Tinto, Morgan Stanley and the Blackstone Group.

China is also a major player in the global debt markets, holding about $1.6 trillion in United States Treasury bonds, an investment that helps keep American interest rates low and finances America’s enormous debt.

But China is still a relatively small player in overseas direct investments, which include purchases of large, voting stakes in foreign companies and plants. That also includes investments in new construction projects on previously undeveloped land — so-called greenfield facilities.

Last year, China’s overseas direct investments amounted to about $59 billion. By comparison, the United States’ figure was over $300 billion.

But with Beijing pushing its big companies to go overseas and invest in resources and technology, China’s investments could soon reach $100 billion to $200 billion a year, according to the Asia Society study.

The potential problem for Beijing is that Chinese companies are not always welcomed overseas — not only because China wields enormous economic clout but because state-owned giants are believed to be subsidized by the state and possibly working in the interest of the government.

Congressional critics of China’s investment aspirations including Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island. “Many of these companies are so closely intertwined with the government of China that it is hard to see where the company stops and the country begins, and vice versa,” Mr. Reed recently told Reuters.

A series of proposed Chinese deals in the United States have been blocked by regulators or attacked by local politicians, who say they are worried China could gain access to sensitive military technology or take control of valuable natural resources.

In 2005, one of China’s giant oil companies, Cnooc, dropped its bid to acquire the American oil giant Unocal after a Congressional investigation into the purchase. And in recent years, the Chinese telecommunications giant, Huawei, has repeatedly been rebuffed from making deals in the United States, over national security concerns.

More recently, the Anshan Iron and Steel Group, a Chinese company seeking to build a relatively unsophisticated steel rebar factory in Mississippi, had to fight fierce political opposition in the state, including fears the project would result in job losses and threaten national security.

Angered at what it says is protectionism masquerading as national security concern, Beijing has lodged sharp complaints with Washington.

The Treasury Department has placed the topic on the agenda for a high-level dialogue with Chinese officials scheduled for next week in Washington.

“We strongly welcome investment from around the world, including China,” says Lael Brainard, one of the highest-ranking Treasury Department officials.

Still, some experts say anti-China sentiment is so high across the country that the United States is unlikely to attract the huge investments over the next few years that the Asia Society study suggests are possible.

“There’s no chance this is going to happen,” says Derek Scissors, an expert on China at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy institute in Washington. “They want to invest a lot, but no one here’s going to let them. The political climate in Washington is too anti-China right now.”

Daniel H. Rosen, co-author of the study with Thilo Hanemann, and a principal at the Rhodium Group, an economic advisory firm in New York, says that if Chinese companies are turned away, it could significantly reduce investment opportunities in the United States.

And, he warns, it could prompt China to retaliate against American businesses that operate in China, while also discouraging Beijing from pushing ahead with reforms that would make its business and financial markets more open and transparent.

“America has been debating this kind of thing for hundreds of years,” Mr. Rosen said. “But time and time again, America has decided” to be open to investment from overseas, he said. “Our conclusion is China is no different.”

To ensure that America gets its share of China’s money, the study calls on Washington to send a clear, bipartisan message that Chinese investment in the United States is welcome, to protect any national security review process from political interference and to work with China to enhance its own transparency when it proposes investing in the United States.

Some analysts say China deserves some of the blame for opposition to its overseas investments, not just in the United States but elsewhere.

Chinese companies are not very transparent, and much of the investing by China is done by a handful of government-owned companies that have access to cheap state financing, giving them what some analysts say is an unfair advantage in competing for resources or assets.

But many analysts say China and the United States clearly need each other. China now has the capital American business so desperately seeks, and the United States has technology and a highly skilled work force.

Orville Schell, director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society and the person who commissioned the study, says the United States must do its part to improve relations with China.

“I feel increasingly alarmed and discouraged by the willful ignorance of Americans to the competitive challenge the Chinese pose to the U.S., including in foreign investment,” Mr. Schell said in an interview. “China is looking for places to park its money, and it could be to our advantage. If we don’t find a way to be open to China, it’s undeniable the money will go elsewhere.”

Comments »

Moody’s: Pharmaceutical asset sales could affect credit ratings

New York, May 03, 2011 — While drug-makers face increasing pressure to divest non-pharmaceutical businesses, selling assets may undermine credit ratings by reducing business diversity and scale, according to a new report from Moody’s Investors Service.

As share prices remain depressed some pharma giants may sell assets in order to fund share repurchases and dividends, while others may consider such businesses no longer core parts of their overall business strategy. Recent higher market valuations for consumer-product businesses could also prompt companies to consider divestitures.

However, asset sales are often credit-negative if the proceeds are not deployed to debt reduction. Negative credit implications may result from lower diversity and a smaller business scale in addition to potential loss of more stable revenue streams.

Companies primarily focused on pharmaceuticals but still owning some non-pharma assets include Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc and sanofi-aventis. Companies that are considerably more diverse and broad-based in healthcare include Johnson & Johnson, Abbott Laboratories and Novartis AG.

“Beyond assets sales, a more radical and transformative option would be for pharmaceutical businesses to split themselves into two,” said Michael Levesque, a Moody’s Senior Vice President.

A split along growth or geographical lines could unlock value if equity valuations for the two smaller companies are greater than that of the combined entity, according to the report.

“This strategy remains hypothetical, but if undertaken, the credit quality of the two segments could be significantly weaker than that of the whole company,” cautioned Levesque.

The new Special Comment, “Global Pharmaceutical Industry: Asset Sales Come With Risks,” is available on Moodys.com.

Comments »